Arrested Development, a comedy on FOX, is highly critically acclaimed, and has even won an Emmy. Regardless of such honors, however, the show received low ratings in it's first two seasons. In February 2005, FOX reduced the show's episode count from 22 to 18. This sparked the widespread rumor that the show would be cancelled after it's second season. Consequently, a great number of Arrested Development fans wrote letters, e-mails, and even websites (such as Save Our Bluths) in an effort to save the show.

Of course, FOX is a business, and, as such, has a right to make decisions that are in their own best interest. However, the fact that they reduced the episode count for (and allegedly considered cancelling) one of their most highly regarded shows reveals their priorities regarding programming.

How screwed up is the TV business? Here's the logic behind the Fox decision: Bad is not bad. Bad is good. Because good could have turned out bad, and that would have been really bad. Translation: Cutting back is a business decision that doesn't reflect on the show's creativity. We know you want to be on in May, but if the numbers aren't good against super-stiff sweeps competition, the chances of getting picked up for a third season drop exponentially.

Read the rest of this article from the San Francisco Chronicle here

Ultimately, FOX did renew Arrested Development for a third season. However, the questions that I believe were raised by this whole situation are: (1) Should television networks give priority to quality, award-winning shows or popular, highly-rated shows? (2) Are television networks too eager to cancel new shows that don't catch on right away? (3) Who is to blame in a situation like this (scheduling, marketing, viewers (or lack thereof), etc)?